Lexus has long had a fascination with self-driving cars—their participation in the near-future movie Minority Report was well-publicized—but their focus at CES isn't on self-driving cars as an end in and of themselves. Rather, the company set its sights on how pulling more smarts and sensors into a car can help reduce on-road fatalities.

This afternoon, Lexus showed off its Advanced Active Safety Research Vehicle, a heavily modified and be-sensored LS 600hL, and discussed the "layered introduction" of autonomous driving technologies. The company was quick to emphasize that "autonomous" doesn't necessarily mean "driverless," however. Even with states like California passing legislation to legalize and regulate self-driving cars, there are huge acceptance and trust issues with letting them roam around the roadways without a person at the helm.

Enlarge/ Lexus's Advanced Active Safety Research Vehicle. It's looking at you right now.

Lee Hutchinson

Rather than tackle that immediately, Lexus (and its parent company Toyota) intend to gradually move in that direction by adding technology to enhance and augment a driver's abilities. The Advanced Active Safety Research Vehicle is a huge part of that.

Enlarge/ The research vehicle features a bevy of bow-mounted stereoscopic sensors.

The Lexus 2013 LS 600h luxury coupe (which our own intrepid reporters Casey Johnston and Andrew Cunningham tested last month) already incorporates a pretty significant amount of autonomous technology. The car has millimeter-wave RADAR, stereo cameras, and near-infrared projectors and receivers to give the car insight into where things are around it. The external sensors make the car aware of the position, speed, and trajectory of everything around it, and they're tied into internal collision avoidance or mitigation systems. When the car detects that a collision is imminent, it can alert the driver through audio and visual means. But it can also take action on its own, stiffening the shocks and suspension, activating seat belt pre-tensioners, and applying its brakes.

Enlarge/ A standard LS 600h L was also on display. Still stuffed with sensors and smarts, though.

Lee Hutchinson

This is state of the art today, but Toyota and Lexus want to take it further. By coupling the advanced research vehicle with a simulated urban proving ground, the duo is researching how better to meld together the vehicle to the driver, the vehicle to other vehicles, and the vehicle to the environment around it. The advanced research vehicle incorporates far more sensors than the production cars, including a roof-mounted LIDAR system for observing and navigating through its surroundings. The ultimate goal is to produce a system that perceives its surroundings and can react to them, offering input into the most efficient and safe way to get to its destination.

Lexus was quick to emphasize the goal of all of this isn't only to produce a car that zooms around on its own, but to produce one that does so safely and whose existence and function reduces the number of people killed on roads. A car that drives its own would be a neat side-effect, but the point is to help drivers live longer.

"Right now, machines can handle simple tasks—parking, following traffic, staying in a lane. We need them to do more," explained Mark Templin, Toyota vice president and general manager of Toyota's Lexus division. There was not a time given as to when this might happen, and Templin was clear to point out the research vehicle shown today is just that—a research vehicle. Still, Minority Report might not be that far away—not just the precog part, but the self-driving car part, too.

Listing image by Lee Hutchinson

Lee Hutchinson
Lee is the Senior Technology Editor at Ars and oversees gadget, automotive, IT, and culture content. He also knows stuff about enterprise storage, security, and manned space flight. Lee is based in Houston, TX. Emaillee.hutchinson@arstechnica.com//Twitter@Lee_Ars

33 Reader Comments

"Company says cars that can sense their surroundings will crash lives, save less."

Nice article, but seems a bit thin, introductory-level - I was left looking for some meat on the bones. On the other hand, if that's really all Lexus said, "we have some great new prototype technology, woohoo!", without any real substance, then shame on Lexus instead.

Too bad the media will over-hype every single incident involving an autonomous vehicle, even if managed to improve safety by 99% over conventional ones. And id guess that most incidence would either be caused by another driver or a firmware glitch that causes a catastrophic failure, such the throttle sticking wide open.

Reading comprehension is at an all time low it seems. The car with all the sensors and cameras is a research vehicle for the more advanced automation. The car without them has some basic sensors that help in case of imminent crashes and is apparent available for purchase.

While I fully support Lexus' goal of reduced traffic deaths, I disagree with their methods. I earned my drivers license back in 1995 and have received exactly 0 hours of ongoing training since then. Perhaps Lexus could start sponsoring some interesting and relevant ongoing driver education. Cell phones weren't exatly everyday items for Gen X and older drivers. Stressing and demonstrating the level of distraction that driver-operated electronic devices impose would be a good place to start (sell more bluetooth options). Emergency handling at speed would spice things up (highlight the handling and braking ability of their fleet). Oh, and while we're at it, remind people how to use turn signals. I don't really care if half the class is a thinly veiled marketing pitch as long as there is some practical information presented in a way that it will be retained in a meaningful way.

Sure, it won't get them mentioned in any news articles, but it would arguably be more effective at meeting their stated goal.

While I fully support Lexus' goal of reduced traffic deaths, I disagree with their methods. I earned my drivers license back in 1995 and have received exactly 0 hours of ongoing training since then. Perhaps Lexus could start sponsoring some interesting and relevant ongoing driver education. Cell phones weren't exatly everyday items for Gen X and older drivers. Stressing and demonstrating the level of distraction that driver-operated electronic devices impose would be a good place to start (sell more bluetooth options). Emergency handling at speed would spice things up (highlight the handling and braking ability of their fleet). Oh, and while we're at it, remind people how to use turn signals. I don't really care if half the class is a thinly veiled marketing pitch as long as there is some practical information presented in a way that it will be retained in a meaningful way.

Sure, it won't get them mentioned in any news articles, but it would arguably be more effective at meeting their stated goal.

Or they can make capital investments in taking humans out of the loop entirely, solving the problem of bad/distracted drivers categorically.

While I fully support Lexus' goal of reduced traffic deaths, I disagree with their methods. I earned my drivers license back in 1995 and have received exactly 0 hours of ongoing training since then. Perhaps Lexus could start sponsoring some interesting and relevant ongoing driver education. Cell phones weren't exatly everyday items for Gen X and older drivers. Stressing and demonstrating the level of distraction that driver-operated electronic devices impose would be a good place to start (sell more bluetooth options). Emergency handling at speed would spice things up (highlight the handling and braking ability of their fleet). Oh, and while we're at it, remind people how to use turn signals. I don't really care if half the class is a thinly veiled marketing pitch as long as there is some practical information presented in a way that it will be retained in a meaningful way.

Sure, it won't get them mentioned in any news articles, but it would arguably be more effective at meeting their stated goal.

But I'm sure you can see that there is a market for those who don't care about rational things such as driver safety.

Or they can make capital investments in taking humans out of the loop entirely, solving the problem of bad/distracted drivers categorically.

Yeah...but I like to drive...

Using technology to solve an education problem will only lead to a different education problem. I understand the end-goal of autonomous personal transportation and I applaud it; that doesn't mean that I have to like it.

While I fully support Lexus' goal of reduced traffic deaths, I disagree with their methods. I earned my drivers license back in 1995 and have received exactly 0 hours of ongoing training since then. Perhaps Lexus could start sponsoring some interesting and relevant ongoing driver education. Cell phones weren't exatly everyday items for Gen X and older drivers. Stressing and demonstrating the level of distraction that driver-operated electronic devices impose would be a good place to start (sell more bluetooth options). Emergency handling at speed would spice things up (highlight the handling and braking ability of their fleet). Oh, and while we're at it, remind people how to use turn signals. I don't really care if half the class is a thinly veiled marketing pitch as long as there is some practical information presented in a way that it will be retained in a meaningful way.

Sure, it won't get them mentioned in any news articles, but it would arguably be more effective at meeting their stated goal.

Mythbusters compared driving while on a phone to driving while under the influence (just under the legal limit). The effects were about the same. Someone once commented about a driver driving with a phone in her ear, she might as well be driving with a bottle of whiskey in her hand.

Emergency handling and other defensive driving techniques being taught? Yes. Especially if the insurance companies get on-board with it and give discounted rates to drivers who have taken them (I think many already do).

Mythbusters compared driving while on a phone to driving while under the influence (just under the legal limit). The effects were about the same. Someone once commented about a driver driving with a phone in her ear, she might as well be driving with a bottle of whiskey in her hand.

Mythbusters entertaining but scientifically worthless. Perhaps they are right in this case, but even a broken clock is right some of the time.

I never talk on the phone while driving and always get angry when I see it, but I'll believe it is the same as drink driving when I've seen a proper study. Not a mythbusters episode.

Perhaps they should also ban radios and talking to your passenger? Drink holders? All buttons unrelated to driving (such as climate control) should be inactive while the engine is running?

We don't need more rules. We need more common sense.

Back on topic I like the sound of all these autonomous driving features but I'm concerned about any I can't disable. I hate automatic gearboxes because they often shift gears when I don't want them to, or release the clutch/torque converter slowly when I want it quick or quick when I want it slow. Will this system be any different? Will it slam on the brakes to avoid a hay bale in the middle of the road when I'm trying to accelerate away from the path of a truck?

About damn time. There is no legitimate excuses for blind spots to exist when we have wide angle lens and cheap LCDs to display what the lens can see.

Likewise, every time a driver turns their head there is a greater chance of an accident from something else unseen. Information about what surrounds a car should all be available to the driver while looking straight ahead.

My preference would be for a very lightweight HUD, but I understand that would confuse many drivers. It is still something I want to be able to get though! Right now it isn't even available, ugh.

Show me what is off to my sides, show me what is behind me. Hell give me an overlay on the windshield showing me bloody distances to different cars. Use head tracking to correctly project the HUD to take parallax into account, thus ensuring the overlay projection stays in the proper place relative to the road.

(And if someone tries to patent that, remember this post!)

Would this add to the cost of the car? Certainly. Doing these fun tricks is *hard* in real world conditions. Sensors don't enjoy being covered in soot, dust, or raindrops. And our current digital camera sensors are a pathetic fraction as sensitive as the human eye.

But worst case is, in degraded conditions the sensors are not able to provide as much help. So long as they disable themselves very aggressively when any uncertainty about the data comes in, then at worst you are dropped back to merely human senses (i.e. you avoid ever giving the driver incorrect information).

I'd love to have a car drive for me. Even if it required me to get to a specific "staging point" to start the self driving part (and again near the destination) I think it would be great.

If my commute was extended by a few minutes, but overall I wasn't driving for 90+% of them, I'd be very happy.

Once they get the major concepts worked out for a single vehicle, they'll have to scale it up and try multiple vehicles, some self driving, some not, and see if they can indeed make them safer. (I foresee stunt men in full suits/helmets attempting to merge in front of these going very slowly, or the classic 'I need to exit the freeway... NOW' from the left lane.)

There have been real scientific studies that equate using a cell phone to drunk driving. People greatly overestimate their ability to multitask, something also proven in studies.

I have intelligent cruise control, which uses LIDAR. OK, except with low sun angle it turns itself off. Poor SNR under that condition. The good news is it sets off LIDAR detectors, which slows down traffic.

I drive a tractor-trailer for a living (as a former programmer, I'm not your typical trucker - I'd expect a response like "Lars WHO?!?" if I mentioned this site to any of my co-workers). As far as I'm concerned, this can't happen soon enough, even if it does eventually put me out of a job by replacing "professional" drivers as well.

Every single day I deal with idiots who think that driving a car is like a video game and the more they take risks and get away with it, the more they win and the better a driver they must be - not thinking of the day they try some slick move and it doesn't work out and the tractor-trailer turns them into a pancake. Then there are the oblivious types yapping on their phones while letting their cars drift all over the road, and who then look at me like I'm the crazy one for honking my horn.

The cynic in me says these idiots deserve what they get, but there would inevitably be innocents drawn in or otherwise affected by the accidents these self-absorbed jerks cause so it's far better to save them from themselves so we all will benefit.

Back on topic I like the sound of all these autonomous driving features but I'm concerned about any I can't disable. I hate automatic gearboxes because they often shift gears when I don't want them to, or release the clutch/torque converter slowly when I want it quick or quick when I want it slow. Will this system be any different? Will it slam on the brakes to avoid a hay bale in the middle of the road when I'm trying to accelerate away from the path of a truck?

I understand, I much prefer a manual to an auto, but there is more here than simple preference.

There are a lot of people who seem to assume that the engineers that work on these things are oblivious idiots. I imagine that my profession (programmer) is partly to blame for this, but in reality, the engineers that work on stuff like this spend a lot of time thinking about these kinds of scenarios.

They make sure that the decisions that the car makes don't endanger you. They make sure that the car works in as many situations as possible. They test scenarios that you will never think of.

Oh, and most automations are optional, cruise control for example. An automatic gearbox is a specific type, not necessarily a computer-controlled system, so trying to have both is essentially impossible. Tiptronic (paddle-shift) is the closest, but you still don't get the direct control.

Although I love to drive, in all weather conditions and in almost any vehicle, the concept of an "autopilot" that could be engaged on demand is attractive.

I am thinking specifically of during non-fun driving situations such as stuck in traffic or long distance drives across the mid-west. Any system that removes choice from the driver however would be unwelcome.

"This is state of the art today, but Toyota and Lexus want to take it further. By coupling the advanced research vehicle with a simulated urban proving ground, the duo is researching how better to meld together the vehicle to the driver, the vehicle to other vehicles, and the vehicle to the environment around it."

Ha! Why bother highlighting the "Me TOO! Look at all my features" company for a belated implementation of technology that has been in use by Mercedes for 10 years and standard (in part - the Lexus touted parts) on all of its models since 2008. The article and consumers should focus on why Lexus has taken 10 years to catch up to its competitors' decade old offerings. BMW, Audi, Range Rover, Porsche, and even Ford have similar safety features and have been offering them for years. Its time Lexus starts innovating and making a decent car worthy of its customers instead of perpetually touting half-baked and ill-implemented "features" that all other "luxury" brands have relegated to "standard equipment" five to ten years prior. New-to-Lexus-but-standard-and-higher-quality-on-all-others is not a "feature;" its pathetic. SOME innovation on Lexus' part in lieu of incessant catch-up-cover-up would be nice.

Keep in mind that BMW, Audi, Mercedes, and Lexus (barely) have all been using systems to avoid crashes due to driver error...The systems Lexus purports as innovation is an inferior version of Mercedes Pre-Safe - Cameras and other sensors that work in concert with the preexisting and previously under-leveraged sensors to help the car better interpret external influences and threats to the vehicle and its occupants. The hope of such systems is to avoid, or at least reduce the severity of, impacts caused by external and otherwise unpredictable situations. Mercedes introduced the world to this type of technology in 2002. By 2008, this type of safety technology is fairly standard across the luxury brands - except Lexus.

Mercedes PRE-SAFE debuted with the 2002 S-Class and was, even in 2002, more capable than the 2013 Lexus featured in this article. Pre-Safe will: - audibly alert the driver of imminent impact. - prepares optimal-force braking so the driver decide can lessen the impact or attempt evasive maneuvers (autonomous braking systems were still new and feared in 2002...still are, to a lesser extent, in 2013) - roll up the windows, close the sunroof (if skid/rollover detected) - articulate and position the occupied seats (front and rear) to an optimal position for imminent impact and airbag deployment - determine which airbags are required and at what strength based on occupancy data (weight, aprox. height, etc) - position headrests to optimal position for the front passengers and, if required, engage the rear headrests if they are in the stowed position - inflate the lateral seat bolsters for extra padding and support during impact - return every step to its pre-intervention state If for some reason the imminent crash is prevented by the car or the driver.

All in 2002...so why, in 2013, are Lexus' "features" praiseworthy? They're not. They're standard most everywhere else and in a far more sophisticated fashion.

2006 - Pre-Safe Autonomous Braking - warns driver of imminent impact audibly and applies up to 40% brakes while readying the optimal braking power required to avoid or, at worst, lessen the impact while ensuring drivers behind you also have the largest braking distance they require to stop or make evasive maneuvers.

2008 through today?- Seat belts are used to pull the passengers away from the source of imminent impact. - Pre-Safe/competitor systems can bring the car to a complete stop while using adaptive cruise control or below 25mph. The pseudo-autonomous vehicles are "aware" of other surrounding vehicles and will use "Pre-Safe" systems to also increase the safety of surrounding vehicle's by including known data of surrounding vehicles to deduce optimal braking power and acceleration in such a way that will afford monotonous vehicles without such systems the largest safety cushion that the pseudo-autonomous vehicle can provide it.

I'm glad Lexus is finally catching up, I am! However, I'm saddened that this article portrays Lexus as the innovator and the one pushing for improvement in this sector when the real news story should be asking why Lexus has taken so long to implement decade old technology into their "state of the art" flagship vehicle...let alone the rest of their fleet.

Also, Lexus often implements "new technology" in the least expensive way possible...which is fine if they were charging a lower price point or chasing that market...but Lexus model pricing is equal to if not higher than a lot of its consumer perceived competitors. Take the Lexus' high beam assistant - it watches for a certain intensity of light and deactivates the high beams when that intensity is detected. BMW's active lighting (Audi and Mercedes have something similar - but BMW has been the pioneer on vehicle lighting for a while) watches the road and shines additional light on pedestrians while blocking light directed into the pedestrian's eyes...and also affords drivers and passengers of vehicles (leading or oncoming) the same luxury. In other words - the lighting is always in "high beams" and uses an LCD-like implementation to perpetually control "per-pixel" intensity across the entire lighted area. Both appear as "high-beam" assist on paper...but BMW's is infinitely better: It fully utilizes lighting capacity by illuminating the driving path and actually "highlighting" potential dangers while freeing other users of the road from blinding glare.

Lexus seems to strive for filling a "features list" while other car companies seem to be focused on improving their vehicles and customer safety.

Mythbusters compared driving while on a phone to driving while under the influence (just under the legal limit). The effects were about the same. Someone once commented about a driver driving with a phone in her ear, she might as well be driving with a bottle of whiskey in her hand.

Mythbusters entertaining but scientifically worthless. Perhaps they are right in this case, but even a broken clock is right some of the time.

That is unjustifiably harsh. They aren't perfect, but to dismiss them as worthless is more wrong.

Quote:

I never talk on the phone while driving and always get angry when I see it, but I'll believe it is the same as drink driving when I've seen a proper study. Not a mythbusters episode.

There is a fair bit of solid research to back this up, both in terms of statistical analysis of actual crashes, as well as simulated tests like reaction. It isn't the only thing: missing a few hours of sleep can do the same as can stress, both well before you realize it. By the time you feel exhausted or noticeably distracted you are far worse than a drunk driver who is at the legal limit. There are two sides to this story. One is that being drunk at near the legal limit definitely impairs you, but not as badly as some people expect. The other is that there are lots of other things that moderately impair your performance, and people don't realize how bad they are.

Mythbusters compared driving while on a phone to driving while under the influence (just under the legal limit). The effects were about the same. Someone once commented about a driver driving with a phone in her ear, she might as well be driving with a bottle of whiskey in her hand.

I have a questionI see most sensor technology uses Lidar or ultrasound

Is it possible to have short range radar on cars, or is it against regulations on radio spectrum?The reason I am asking is, if you can integrate a radar screen inside the car, you make driving into blind junctions and at night much safer, because you can anticipate and see around corners.

If they are going to ruin aero-dynamics and looks of a car by sticking sensors to it externally like in the above picture, then no thanks.

It's a prototype. Of course, you would have known that if you didn't bother to comment on the picture without reading the article.

What I was saying is that if they haven't figured where to put those ugly sensors yet, they shouldn't have bothered showing the prototype unless they held an actual demonstration which they obviously didn't.

So yes, I have read the article, and it is not "reading comprehension fail" -- more like "failure to grasp the point of a pointless show-off of an ugly-looking unfinished technology". For something that says "Integrated Safety" on the door in a large bold typeface, it doesn't look that integrated to me.

If they are going to ruin aero-dynamics and looks of a car by sticking sensors to it externally like in the above picture, then no thanks.

It's a prototype. Of course, you would have known that if you didn't bother to comment on the picture without reading the article.

What I was saying is that if they haven't figured where to put those ugly sensors yet, they shouldn't have bothered showing the prototype unless they held an actual demonstration which they obviously didn't.

So yes, I have read the article, and it is not "reading comprehension fail" -- more like "failure to grasp the point of a pointless show-off of an ugly-looking unfinished technology". For something that says "Integrated Safety" on the door in a large bold typeface, it doesn't look that integrated to me.

But sir what was your point again? You are criticising the aerodynamics of a prototype? I see no problem of demonstrating prototype and showing you a photo of it. Of course in the final vehicle air dynamics will be factored into account, with stingent emission legistrations it'd be stupid not to. If they can figure a way to put radar in an aircraft they can do it in a car.